Topic: Test Drive: 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage ES

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I had a pdf of a traffic study done to measure how quickly people merge onto the highway. The average time was 16-17 seconds IIRC.

I wish I could find it, but I think it was lost on one of my old PCs.

But if you want to make the highways with a faster limit speed do you not need to improve the acceleration time?
Say if I want the highway speed limit to be 150kph and having the same acceleration ramp length.

Of course there might be other factors as well.

And if the Spark/Mirage can only accelerate at 15 seconds (assuming just the driver), what would its fastest possible acceleration time be when it is fully loaded with passengers and cargo?

And carrying-on, I hate those drivers that stop near the end of the acceleration ramp;
Wouldn't a faster acceleration car be safer in that scenario?

The tests were set up on ramps off of intersections so they could see how long it took average drivers to go from a stop to the end of the ramp onto a US highway. I can't remember the speed limit on the highway, something like 60mph.

The Mirage does 0-60 in something like 11 seconds with the manual and 13 with the CVT, depending on the test, so faster than what traffic was doing on the tested on ramps.

As long as you can match highway speeds by the end of the ramp, you'd be ok. If ramps are built to standard (~1200ft, 360m), it should be fine.

It wasn't  long ago that we had lots of 70hp Civic DX, 55hp Rabbit diesels and 48hp Sprints rolling around, and they weren't lighter than the Mirage, but had really tall gearing.

These are also sold in Europe with an even smaller 1.0L engine. Autoroutes, autobahns and autostrada tend to flow quicker in certain sections that what we have here.

Stopping at the end of a ramp is stupid, but I've seen every type of vehicle do it.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Raphael Orlove over at Jalopnik just posted his best/worst of 2013 list. The Mirage is on his best list.

http://jalopnik.com/the-best-and-worst-cars-ive-driven-this-year-1487221916

[Black Hatch]

Raphael Orlove over at Jalopnik just posted his best/worst of 2013 list. The Mirage is on his best list.

http://jalopnik.com/the-best-and-worst-cars-ive-driven-this-year-1487221916

...and rated the 2014 Corolla the worst...
just saying.

edit: seems like the Mirage he tested was a manual.
The manual mazda2 I test drove was awesome.
The auto not so-much.

[Black Hatch]

I had a pdf of a traffic study done to measure how quickly people merge onto the highway. The average time was 16-17 seconds IIRC.

I wish I could find it, but I think it was lost on one of my old PCs.

But if you want to make the highways with a faster limit speed do you not need to improve the acceleration time?
Say if I want the highway speed limit to be 150kph and having the same acceleration ramp length.

Of course there might be other factors as well.

And if the Spark/Mirage can only accelerate at 15 seconds (assuming just the driver), what would its fastest possible acceleration time be when it is fully loaded with passengers and cargo?

And carrying-on, I hate those drivers that stop near the end of the acceleration ramp;
Wouldn't a faster acceleration car be safer in that scenario?

The tests were set up on ramps off of intersections so they could see how long it took average drivers to go from a stop to the end of the ramp onto a US highway. I can't remember the speed limit on the highway, something like 60mph.

The Mirage does 0-60 in something like 11 seconds with the manual and 13 with the CVT, depending on the test, so faster than what traffic was doing on the tested on ramps.

As long as you can match highway speeds by the end of the ramp, you'd be ok. If ramps are built to standard (~1200ft, 360m), it should be fine.

It wasn't  long ago that we had lots of 70hp Civic DX, 55hp Rabbit diesels and 48hp Sprints rolling around, and they weren't lighter than the Mirage, but had really tall gearing.

These are also sold in Europe with an even smaller 1.0L engine. Autoroutes, autobahns and autostrada tend to flow quicker in certain sections that what we have here.

Stopping at the end of a ramp is stupid, but I've seen every type of vehicle do it.

Thanks for the comments but you didn't answer my questions.

1. But if you want to make the highways with a faster limit speed do you not need to improve the acceleration time?
Say if I want the highway speed limit to be 150kph and having the same acceleration ramp length.

2. And carrying-on, I hate those drivers that stop near the end of the acceleration ramp;
Wouldn't a faster acceleration car be safer in that scenario?

And in regards to the low displacement engines, were they not manual transmission.
We have to assume that all these new vehicles have auto or CVT transmissions that don't have the greatest acceleration.
Moreover those older vehicles also had a lot lighter weight with the increase safety demands.

What were the acceleration times of those 70hp Civic DX, 55hp Rabbit diesels and 48hp Sprints anyways?
More or less than 15 seconds?

And lets stick with roadways here because in Europe
a) have better driver training
b) they mostly drive manual 

[JohnM]

"What were the acceleration times of those 70hp Civic DX, 55hp Rabbit diesels and 48hp Sprints anyways?
More or less than 15 seconds?"

Probably around 15 seconds or maybe slightly more.  It just proves the point that anything will move well enough if flogged.  The only time I stopped (pulled off to the side) of an on-ramp was in a 55hp diesel Jetta with 3 speed auto.  I had just gotten it from the rental dealer and had "jumped" onto a 400 series highway.  A transport was coming and I put my foot down.  Nothing.  So I pulled over.

Since I then knew what was involved I didn't have the problem again - a little planning helps - but if dump trucks and loaded steel trucks can get onto the highway so can anything else.   Hesitation and being intimidated are the main problems for most drivers not the power of the car.

Cheers,
John M.

[mixmanmash]

I didn't have the problem again - a little planning helps - but if dump trucks and loaded steel trucks can get onto the highway so can anything else.   Hesitation and being intimidated are the main problems for most drivers not the power of the car.

Cheers,
John M.

Agreed.

[PJ]

I didn't have the problem again - a little planning helps - but if dump trucks and loaded steel trucks can get onto the highway so can anything else.   Hesitation and being intimidated are the main problems for most drivers not the power of the car.

Cheers,
John M.

Agreed.

I agree too.  Thinking you need a lot for power to merge or keep up with traffic anywhere in Canada is nonsense.

[Black Hatch]

I just realized the silliness of increasing speed limits, highways are mainly built around the speed of transport trucks.
And if you wanted faster speeds limits (and maybe acceleration times) then you would have to change transport trucks as well.

Anyways in my silly fantasy  sci-fi world with high speed limits, the new method of merging would be vehicle put in to position and launched on "catapults" borrowed from de-commisioned US Navy carriers and launched to the respective speed limit. 

[PJ]

I just realized the silliness of increasing speed limits, highways are mainly built around the speed of transport trucks.
And if you wanted faster speeds limits (and maybe acceleration times) then you would have to change transport trucks as well.

Anyways in my silly fantasy  sci-fi world with high speed limits, the new method of merging would be vehicle put in to position and launched on "catapults" borrowed from de-commisioned US Navy carriers and launched to the respective speed limit. 

My issue isn't with transport truck.   For the most part those guys know what they are doing and will go about their business while we go about ours.

My issue is speed limits apply to everyone.  There are way too many people who can't safely drive at the current speed limit.   Raise the limits and the bad drivers will drive faster too.  Not good.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Thanks for the comments but you didn't answer my questions.

1. But if you want to make the highways with a faster limit speed do you not need to improve the acceleration time?
Say if I want the highway speed limit to be 150kph and having the same acceleration ramp length.

2. And carrying-on, I hate those drivers that stop near the end of the acceleration ramp;
Wouldn't a faster acceleration car be safer in that scenario?

And in regards to the low displacement engines, were they not manual transmission.
We have to assume that all these new vehicles have auto or CVT transmissions that don't have the greatest acceleration.
Moreover those older vehicles also had a lot lighter weight with the increase safety demands.

What were the acceleration times of those 70hp Civic DX, 55hp Rabbit diesels and 48hp Sprints anyways?
More or less than 15 seconds?

And lets stick with roadways here because in Europe
a) have better driver training
b) they mostly drive manual

I did answer, in that Europe already has faster highways and lots of small cars manage there without too much carnage. Germans have more rigorous training than we do, but I don't think the same thing applies to the Italians, Portuguese or Spaniards.

Acceleration times of the cars listed were all over 13 seconds, which is about the 0-60 of the CVT Mirage. They weren't lighter than the Mirage with the exception of the Sprint, which was about 100kgs lighter. A lot of them did sell with 3 speed autos back in the day, which didn't help their performance a bit.

0-60, 1/4 mile

1985 Sprint 1.0L 14.5sec, 20.3sec
1979 Rabbit Diesel 21.3sec, 22.2sec
1987 Honda Civic Hatchback, 13.6sec, 19.3sec


I don't think we'll be seeing much in the way of faster highways here. It's not just a safety issue, but a fuel consumption issue. Going from 100 to 120kph consumes 20% more fuel. Going from 120 to ~132 consumes another 20%, from 132 to ~140 another and so on.

[JohnM]

On the higher speed limit issue, Germany is always held out as the ideal.   Aside from fuel consumption which is a major concern, there are other aspects of the German model which don't make the headlines so often.

If you want the German model here is what you will get besides higher limits:

- much more strict enforcement - where limits are in play, and this could be on any autobahn section at any time depending on traffic density and road conditions, - stick to the posted limit or pay the very high price.  Don't bother phoning Dial-a-cop to get you off.  The Dutch are even tighter, we got a ticket for doing 102 in a 100 zone.  Make sure your speedometer is dead accurate or play it very safe.

- car inspections - there are virtually no cars in Germany with anything so much as rust showing.   Brakes, tires etc have to be up to a higher standard.  This costs money.  If you think drive-clean is a pain, you'll love the inspection schedule.  You will not drive a car which does not meet the standard.

- snow tires - you will have 4 snow tires on your car whether it snows once a year in your region or not.

- autobahns are extremely well engineered.  Not only are they smooth, they are also flat so there is minimal suspension loading and unloading at speed.  They are also very well maintained and all this costs a great deal of money which comes from licensing and fuel tax. 

High speed done properly is very expensive and given the Canadian road conditions and our ability to make and maintain roads as well as the training required to upgrade driver skills, I very much doubt high speed highways will ever become a reality here.  And there is the touchy fuel consumption issue.

Cheers,
John M.

[tooscoops]

crazy talk john!!!  things people want cost money!?? blasphamy!

i'm with those who think people stopping at the end of on ramps has little to do with the car and is all about people being stupid.

[dirtyjeffer]

Acceleration times of the cars listed were all over 13 seconds, which is about the 0-60 of the CVT Mirage. They weren't lighter than the Mirage with the exception of the Sprint, which was about 100kgs lighter. A lot of them did sell with 3 speed autos back in the day, which didn't help their performance a bit.

0-60, 1/4 mile

1985 Sprint 1.0L 14.5sec, 20.3sec
1979 Rabbit Diesel 21.3sec, 22.2sec
1987 Honda Civic Hatchback, 13.6sec, 19.3sec


I don't think we'll be seeing much in the way of faster highways here. It's not just a safety issue, but a fuel consumption issue. Going from 100 to 120kph consumes 20% more fuel. Going from 120 to ~132 consumes another 20%, from 132 to ~140 another and so on.

while i understand your point (and don't disagree), it is difficult to compare current cars with cars from 30 years ago...while all those small cars were "slow" in the day, they weren't that slow, when compared to other regular cars...i remember the 1993 Mustang GTs with the 5.0L V8 engines having 225 HP...now they have 420 HP...many of the mid size sedans with 3-4L V6 engines had 120-150 HP...now, most economy cars with 1.5-2L engines have that much or more...look at many discussions in here...a 0-60 above 8 seconds is now considered "meh", where 30 years ago, that would be Ferrari or Porsche territory...now, their territory (Porsche, etc) is in the 4s or lower.

in short, having a small car 30 years ago take 15 seconds to get to 60 isn't as bad when many other cars took 10-12 anyway...and most of those cars were likely 18 second quarter mile times, so having something at 20 seconds isn't that big of a deal (yes, i realize 2 seconds in a quarter mile time is big, but this isn't a drag race, it is accelerating for an onramp we are talking about)...i think it is more about "relativity"...a 15 second car 30 years ago was "normal"...a 13 second car today is abysmal.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

while i understand your point (and don't disagree), it is difficult to compare current cars with cars from 30 years ago...while all those small cars were "slow" in the day, they weren't that slow, when compared to other regular cars...i remember the 1993 Mustang GTs with the 5.0L V8 engines having 225 HP...now they have 420 HP...many of the mid size sedans with 3-4L V6 engines had 120-150 HP...now, most economy cars with 1.5-2L engines have that much or more...look at many discussions in here...a 0-60 above 8 seconds is now considered "meh", where 30 years ago, that would be Ferrari or Porsche territory...now, their territory (Porsche, etc) is in the 4s or lower.

in short, having a small car 30 years ago take 15 seconds to get to 60 isn't as bad when many other cars took 10-12 anyway...and most of those cars were likely 18 second quarter mile times, so having something at 20 seconds isn't that big of a deal (yes, i realize 2 seconds in a quarter mile time is big, but this isn't a drag race, it is accelerating for an onramp we are talking about)...i think it is more about "relativity"...a 15 second car 30 years ago was "normal"...a 13 second car today is abysmal.

For all the extra power though, the average person doesn't use it in day to day traffic. I accelerate at the same rate to get onto the highway in the 148hp XV as I did in the 256hp Outback, or 132hp Vibe.

Highway speeds haven't changed significantly over the years, so merging it still easier in a modern weakling than mainstream cars from years ago.

[dirtyjeffer]

as i said, i don't really disagree with you (i never had "fear" driving small cars in the 80s either)...my point was more about relativity...while most brands are giving you 100-140 hp out of the smallest cars, this one at 76 sticks out.

think back to the 48 HP Chevy Sprint...what if Mits made a 30 HP Colt (what the Mirage used to be called)?

[PJ]

as i said, i don't really disagree with you (i never had "fear" driving small cars in the 80s either)...my point was more about relativity...while most brands are giving you 100-140 hp out of the smallest cars, this one at 76 sticks out.

think back to the 48 HP Chevy Sprint...what if Mits made a 30 HP Colt (what the Mirage used to be called)?

Most brands are also giving you 500 to 1000 lbs more weight to haul around.   What does you compact car weigh?   There's nothing wrong with 76 hp in a 1900 lb car. 

[mixmanmash]

as i said, i don't really disagree with you (i never had "fear" driving small cars in the 80s either)...my point was more about relativity...while most brands are giving you 100-140 hp out of the smallest cars, this one at 76 sticks out.

think back to the 48 HP Chevy Sprint...what if Mits made a 30 HP Colt (what the Mirage used to be called)?

Most brands are also giving you 500 to 1000 lbs more weight to haul around.   What does you compact car weigh?   There's nothing wrong with 76 hp in a 1900 lb car.

This is true.  My 2002 Protege ES/GT weighs in at 2600lbs (as an aside - mine probably weighs less now since the rust has been eating away steel and falling off   ).  The 2004 Mazda 3 top model weighed in at about 2800 lbs.  By 2009, the car got to almost 3000lbs.  BY 2013, 3100lbs.

At least Mazda is going in the right direction with 2014 as the top model is under 3000lbs.

[dirtyjeffer]

Most brands are also giving you 500 to 1000 lbs more weight to haul around.   What does you compact car weigh?   There's nothing wrong with 76 hp in a 1900 lb car.

the SE with CVT weighs 2051 pounds...my car weighs 2482...each HP in the Mirage has to motivate 27 pounds vs 18 pounds in my car.

as i said, i don't agree with the danger part, i just think that using cars from 30 years ago to "defend" this thing is rather absurd...i mean, what's next, talk about the 0-60 times and roadholding of the Model T to make the Mirage look like a champ??...come on.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Most brands are also giving you 500 to 1000 lbs more weight to haul around.   What does you compact car weigh?   There's nothing wrong with 76 hp in a 1900 lb car.

the SE with CVT weighs 2051 pounds...my car weighs 2482...each HP in the Mirage has to motivate 27 pounds vs 18 pounds in my car.

as i said, i don't agree with the danger part, i just think that using cars from 30 years ago to "defend" this thing is rather absurd...i mean, what's next, talk about the 0-60 times and roadholding of the Model T to make the Mirage look like a champ??...come on.

What does age have to do with it? Cars in the muscle car era had plenty of power, but when the fuel shocks hit, people quickly moved to much less powerful and smaller cars. People adapt with environment and fashion.

If drivers typically don't floor their car to accelerate, then it's just wasted potential. As long as they feel they're getting adequate acceleration, I don't think people interested in this kind of car will care.

[dirtyjeffer]

If drivers typically don't floor their car to accelerate, then it's just wasted potential. As long as they feel they're getting adequate acceleration, I don't think people interested in this kind of car will care.

i realize that most people don't "floor" their cars to accelerate, but even when floored, this car takes a while to get "up to speed"...pretty much every other review i have read has said this car is pretty down on power...i suppose if you just want to boot around the city, it would be no big deal, but as i said earlier, there are so many other better choices for similar money...honestly, i'm surprised Mits is still selling cars here...i said it after Suzuki pulled out, Mits will be next...they just don't sell enough cars here to make it work.